Canthin's page

After defeating Bagoas twice and witnessing him reform, the party fled. That night they discussed possible solutions.
The wise Cleric - "I think his link to this world has something to do with the deed. I think if we show it to him, it will convince him that he is no master of the castle and it will weaken him enough to destroy him."
The genius Wizard - "I think showing him the deed will just incite him to own it, solidifying his hold on this realm. I think we should destroy it in front of him to show that his dream of ruling can never come true."
The worldly Bard - "If we destroy it, we won't be able to use it later if that tactic fails. I think we should give it to him so his unresolved issue of not being the true owner is no longer valid. That should weaken him enough to defeat him permanently."
The strong Fighter - "Everything has a breaking point. I think if we (*player rolls a d20*) defeat him 14 times his energy will no longer be able to restore him."
The apathetic Rogue - "One of you is right. (*player rolls a d4*). I say we beat him 12 more times and go from there."

Quantum Steve,

The 15' cone counts from the intersection and then counts along the sides of the squares (or diagonally through a square in some cases).

In this image I show how you can count from the intersection.
The 5/10/15 are counting each step of the line, the white "L" is to show that that far edge is legal.

One thing you seem to be forgetting though, Gauss, is that you are supposed to draw from an intersection 15' to form the cone (like all the other cones). The first line that you draw along the 5 square doesn't actually cross that square anywhere so the "If the spell's area only touches the near edge of a square, however, anything within that square is unaffected by the spell." part of the rules would say that your 5 box isn't effected by the spell. If you instead cross that box with the first diagonal (and then draw another diagonal in the other direction) then you get a cone just like all the other diagrams (starting with 2 squares and then moving straight out the length of the cone and forming diagonals equal to the length of the line you draw from the intersection.

It isn't as easy to say with words what you can by just drawing it, but I don't have the capability to post a picture of the templates at work.

Don't forget the Arcanist. White Mage can spontaneously cast cure spells like a Cleric, and can take the Fast Healing exploit. Add Unlettered Arcanist to it and you get the Witch spell list instead of Wizard. Can be a pretty effective combo.

Price of the weapon you want to end up with minus the price of the weapon you have now equals the price you pay to upgrade to the weapon you want.

+1 axiomatic = +3 price equivalent = 18,000 gp (plus weapon cost, irrelevant here since it will be the same on both sides of the equation)

So whether you want a +2 axiomatic khopesh or, for instance, a +1 axiomatic flaming khopesh, the result is the equivalent of a +4 weapon.

A +4 weapon costs 32,000 gp (the price for weapons is bonus^2 x 2,000).

+4 cost (32K) - +3 cost (18K) = upgrade cost (14K)

So you'll need 14,000 gold to upgrade your weapon.

CRB Rules Source

Or 1/2 that amount (7k) if you have Craft Arms and Armor and spend 14 days upgrading it yourself. :)

Also remember that without Combat Reflexes, you can't make AoOs on the first round of combat unless you have already gone. So if you lose initiative and don't have Combat Reflexes, the goblin can run circles around you without provoking AoOs.

The DM says "Combat begins" or my usual announcement of "perception checks. Something wants to eat you".

Doesn't this go against your golden "list"? If combat starts when you say "make perception checks" you are starting with number 2, not number 1 (roll initiative).

I'm fairly certain the "determine who is aware" AFTER initiative is rolled is more "determine whose initiative will be counted during the surprise round" not actually "make the checks now that initiative has been rolled and players have no idea what is going on to see if they know what is going on enough to act"

I'm pretty sure you should need Double Slice for full DEX damage in the offhand, as mplindustries points out. Slashing grace lets you use DEX instead of STR. If your offhand would do 1/2 STR, then it would do 1/2 DEX. Double Slice makes it so your offhand is full STR, so it would be required for full DEX too.

The shield proficiency feat includes this text:

"Barbarians, bards, clerics, druids, fighters, paladins, and rangers all automatically have Shield Proficiency as a bonus feat. They need not select it."

I suspect that other classes should be in that list, such as some of those from the Advanced Class Guide.

What other classes automatically gain this feat?

All classes have a "Weapon and Armor Proficiency" section that lists what they get for free. The Inquisitor for example:

Weapon and Armor Proficiency

An inquisitor is proficient with all simple weapons, plus the hand crossbow, longbow, repeating crossbow, shortbow, and the favored weapon of her deity. She is also proficient with light armor, medium armor, and shields (except tower shields).

So the Inquisitor gets Shield Proficiency (except for tower shields) as a bonus feat.

Well, the armor is automatically donned when activating the revelation, and definitionally removed when deactivating the revelation. So, standard action to put on or take off.

I think he was referring to what "type" of armor is it according to the ARMOR section of equipment. If it is specifically armor, and takes up the armor slot, then it would have to be defined there.

Do traits like Defender of the Society (Benefit: You gain a +1 trait bonus to Armor Class when wearing medium or heavy armor.) work with it? What about other traits or feats that specifically effect "armor"?

So the Blood Arcanist gets the Bloodline ability

Bloodline

A blood arcanist selects one bloodline from those available through the sorcerer bloodline class feature. The blood arcanist gains the bloodline arcana and bloodline powers of that bloodline, treating her arcanist level as her sorcerer level. The blood arcanist does not gain the class skill, bonus feats, or bonus spells from her bloodline.

Does a Blood Arcanist count as a Sorcerer for a Robe of Arcane Heritage or other items that are "bloodline" specific?

These elegant, dark purple robes are usually decorated with gold stitching suggesting a particular sorcerer bloodline, though some might indicate a family tree. When a sorcerer dons a robe of arcane heritage, the stitching pulls itself apart and reweaves to match her particular sorcerer bloodline. The wearer treats her sorcerer level as 4 higher than normal for the purpose of determining what bloodline powers she can use and their effects.

Since Arcanist level = Sorcerer level...

So it counts as a two-handed weapon for power attack when using it as a double?

Nope.

If you use it as the two handed weapon it is listed as, it gets -1/+3 from Power Attack, and 1.5x STR

If you use it as a double weapon (one hander and light) that it CAN be used as then it counts as -1/+2 (main hand) -1/+1 (off hand) for Power Attack and 1x STR (main hand) .5x STR (off hand). Along with all the other two weapon penalty/bonuses you would normally get for fighting with two weapons.

Honestly, I like the FAQ. It just reinforces the "please don't look for cheese just because you can smell it, unless it is put on the table for you" philosophy. Oracles can still benefit from IEH(Arcane) even after the FAQ. They just have to choose spells that are on the Wizard/Sorcerer list and ALSO on the Cleric/Oracle list in order to cast them. There are more than a few. It makes those willing to invest in the feats still useful, they just don't get to cast a bunch of spells never intended for Oracles to be able to cast. (Same goes for Bards, or Clerics, or Druids, etc. that could take the feats). Not being able to cast spells that aren't on your list doesn't make these feats (or the FAQ) worthless.

Why in the Nine Hells would you make constructs "living creatures"? They aren't! They don't have feelings,...

Johny 5 doesn't agree with you :P

I always figured it meant "You can deal precision damage" (which you normally can't do with concealment) because you CAN target the creature, you just get the 50% miss chance for him not really being there some of the time.

If you are aiming at his face, and you hit, you hit his face, whereas if the miss chance wasn't overcome, you "hit" his face but his face wasn't really there, so no damage.

I might be reading too much into "unlike actual total concealment, displacement does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally."

Barbarians/Bloodragers get this at 7th level. By the time they get DR 1/-, is it really that tremendous to not get that extra single hitpoint of damage when creatures encountered at that point are capable of easily doing damage in the teens and 20's and more?

Don't get me wrong, I'd prefer 1 hit point less damage given a choice. But, I've heard players rave about getting that ability and I don't quite see the extraordinary advantage.

Am I missing something?

It has its uses.

It is double against non-lethal damage, so if the average person does 1-3 non-lethal, that makes the 1/- DR king of bar fights.

It adds up against multiple opponents. When you attacked by a bunch of minions in a round that 1 point less per hit can be pretty significant.

Also, I'm pretty sure there are rage powers that can increase the DR which can be super nice.

I usually go for simple when it comes to rules, and that usually means looking at things as a whole. In this case, it isn't just the Enhancement bonus part that I'm looking at, but also the special abilities. If the consensus is that the special abilities stack (a +1 weapon can become Flame Burst with Arcane Pool, and Keen with Arcane Weapon) than the abilities stack. If the abilities stack, then the Enhancement bonuses stack.

If on the other hand most believe that the Enhancement bonuses don't stack, for whatever reason, then the special abilities shouldn't be an exception and the abilities just shouldn't stack.

Stacking one way but not stacking another way just seems unnecessary.

(My main use of these two abilities would be to use Arcane Pool for Enhancement bonus, and Arcane Weapon for special abilities, but like I said simple would be good. You never know when an extra +1 could come in handy instead of Shocking)

As written, Broad Study only allows spells from the other class right? So if you were a Magus 6 / Elemental Sorcerer 3, you could cast your Sorcerer spells with Spellstrike and Spell Combat, but you couldn't use your Elemental Ray ability with either correct?

Would it be overpowered to do so? Use your Wizard's Arcane School ability with Spell Combat, or Summon Monster as a Magus / Summoner? Or if you were a Magus / Cleric, to use Spell Combat with a Channel in place of a spell. Something like that? Would it require a higher level version of Broad Study (with Broad Study as a prerequisite) to be "balanced"?

What about things that are "as you cast a spell", like the Admixture Wizard Arcane School ability? You would be able to use that with Spell Combat as long as the spell you were casting was on your lists right?

Arcanist Exploits? Lightning Lance vs. Metamixing? One is used like a spell to blast your enemies with lightning (totally Magus) the other allows you to add a Metamagic feat to a spell without increasing its casting time. As written, only the second would work with Spell Combat correct?

I could have sworn it was spells and abilities of the other class, but that might have been a playtest version I'm thinking of.

-Also a Con bonus of +2

We are talking apples and oranges apparently. The spell has no increase or decrease in CON. The spell doesn't use modifiers needed for increasing a statblock from one size to another following the advancement rules, or the template rules. A GM making a Huge Wolf for an encounter has different rules using different stats than the spell offers (I covered that the spell and the templates/advancement rules use different stat). The Aurumvorax even states in its statblock "(Medium size for most aurumvoraxes)" meaning that there ARE ones of different sizes that aren't explicitly stated in the Bestiary.

I don't know of any argument I can use against "knowledgeable players and GMs" that use rules to say that one thing doesn't exist for one purpose, but is perfectly acceptable to use for another. Especially since the "mechanically different from Bestiary entries" argument doesn't mean squat to the Beast Shape spells since we have already seen that Bestiary creatures of one size (Medium Wolf) are MECHANICALLY different from creatures of the same type but different sizes (Large Wolf). Meaning that the Medium and Large versions conflict mechanically with each other. But again, that doesn't matter to the spell. The Medium Wolf gets +2 STR, +2 NA, Scent, Low-light Vision. "Large Wolf" gets +4 STR, -2 DEX, and +4 NA, Scent, Low-light Vision, Trip (because even though a Medium Wolf gets Trip, it isn't available to the spell until Beast Shape 2)

Paizo isn't going to list every animal ever. I find it frustrating that there are TINY Turtles and GARGANTUAN Turtles, but NOTHING in between (except for Animal Companions). Really? No Small Turtles?

I understand that I'm in the minority for thinking that the Bestiary is a guideline that should be followed and not a codex of "only this".

I guess at the end of the day, I'll agree to disagree.

I apologize if I offended anyone or if anyone feels like I attacked them (especially mplindustries who is one of my top 5 favorite rules lawyers)

Are there any forms with every ability in Beast Form III? If the spell, and not the form, regulates power, then there should be no harm in shifting into an animal with all of them, right?

I am pretty certain you are missing the point completely.

No one (other than mplindustries) is saying that animals gain super powers for changing their size. Specific over rules general right? So if you can find a specific example of a Wolf getting Trample, go for it. Otherwise, Wolves get Scent, Low-light vision, and Trip. A Small, or Huge version should make no difference at all based on the spell.

No one is trying to make a new kind of creature, just applying modifiers to an already existing creature (that may be of a different size). I'm not trying to say that if a Large Bear already exists, you should use the abilities of a Medium Bear, but the stat increases of the Large size on the spell. I'm saying that if you want to be a Large Bear, and there are only Medium versions, then use the closest applicable size for abilities, and the size modifiers for the spell. There is a Medium Wolf, and a Large Wolf. To turn into a Small Wolf, use the Medium Wolf's abilities with the modifiers for Small Animals from the spell. Huge Wolf would use Large Wolf's abilities with the Huge Animal modifiers from the spell.

I have to admit, I never thought this was an issue before reading some of these posts about it. It made logical sense to apply the correct modifiers (based on size) to the creature you were changing into. We've been playing Pathfinder for years, and never once has any of my players (I GM) tried to turn into a Poisonous, Flying Boar.

At 4th level or higher, a monk within arm's reach of a wall can use it to slow his descent. When first gaining this ability, he takes damage as if the fall were 20 feet shorter than it actually is. The monk's ability to slow his fall (that is, to reduce the effective distance of the fall when next to a wall) improves with his monk level until at 20th level he can use a nearby wall to slow his descent and fall any distance without harm.

So, level 4 Monk can treat falls as 20' less when next to a "wall".

What constitutes a "wall"?

If I climb a 30' tree and then fail a climb check by 5, falling 30', can I use the tree to slow my fall?

Cliff face? Ship mast? Storm Giant? Fireman's pole?

Also, can Acrobatics be used to increase the damageless distance by 10'. Effectively "jumping down" from the top of that 30' tree for no damage?

Falling: When you deliberately fall any distance, even as a result of a missed jump, a DC 15 Acrobatics skill check allows you to ignore the first 10 feet fallen, although you still end up prone if you take damage from a fall. See Falling Damage for more details.)

I hate saying this, but I think it's kind of up to the GM. I know that in my game, I'm not going to tell the Ranger that has Favored Enemy (Dragon) "Go ahead and add your Favored Enemy (Dragon) bonus to this attack on the reoccurring villain that totally looks human and up until you fired your arrow you totally thought was human". That would ruin the surprise when 10 levels later they find out that "EvilSorcererDude" is actually a Dragon!!!

Now, based on some of the reactions here, I may secretly add the bonus in, but I'm not going to give away a piece of things to come because of he attacked a thing that looks like a thing but is actually another thing.

"You aren't sure why, but you just don't like FriendlyMerchantDude much even though he is offering such a great deal on the magic bow you have had your eyes on". That is more in line with foreshadowing a Favored Enemy that is doing a fairly good job at "hiding in plain sight" than, "Yes, add your Favored Enemy (Evil Outsider) to the attack on the dude in the bar fight"...

Shackled City Spoiler

Canthin wrote:

Ssalarn wrote:

Put the whole thing down. "Your successful melee touch attack deals 1d6 points of electricity damage per caster level (maximum 5d6). When delivering the jolt, you gain a +3 bonus on attack rolls if the opponent is wearing metal armor (or is carrying a metal weapon or is made of metal)."

And Spellstrike "At 2nd level, whenever a magus casts a spell with a range of “touch” from the magus spell list, he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack."

As Grick noted, all the criteria are met by Spellstrike to allow the attack the +3 vs. metal or metal-wearing opponents.

Delivering the "jolt", not delivering the touch. The jolt (the part that does damage) discharges when you are "close" to the metal target, thus giving you a bonus for the spell (not necessarily the touch) "to hit" them.

Spellstrike requires you TO HIT the targets normal AC to "deliver the spell". I don't think the intent of Shocking Grasp delivered through Spellstrike is to pull the weapon towards the target, but to discharge the spell on a successful hit (against normal AC) just like any other spell delivered through Spellstrike.

The spell (any spell) is riding along on the attack. If it hits it discharges, if it misses, it can be held.

I'm confused by what you're trying to say. Are you somehow saying that there should be two attack rolls, one to touch and another to actually deal damage with the spell? Because that's needlessly complicated and just plain incorrect to boot. The +3 applies to the roll to deliver the spell. Spellstrike allows you to deliver the spell through the weapon. Consequently, you get the +3 bonus when Spellstriking. It's what Magus' are meant to do. They nova really hard and dish out gads of damage while they've got touch spells available, and then their damage and accuracy drops off rapidly once they've expended their resources.

Sorry, I didn't mean to confuse. There is only one attack roll. It is what the attack roll represents that I'm trying to clarify.

I've been playing D&D since 1e. Back in the THAC0 days where there was no "touch" AC, and the explanation behind attack rolls wasn't that you "miss" but that you don't deal damage. That's why STR helps you "hit". It is also why Shocking Grasp had a bonus against metal armor, to represent that you may not have actually hit the target, but that the spell did damage because you were "close enough" for it to arc and discharge on the target.

I still use this style of thinking (sometimes incorrectly) but when it comes to something that has been around forever and its "flavor" text is relatively the same, I believe the representation of the attack is the same. Which doesn't translate well with Spellstrike since that is more cut and dry hit or miss to deal WEAPON damage, not just the jolt from Shocking Grasp.

If the weapon misses, it doesn't discharge the spell. This is true for all spells (except Shocking Grasp to some). To me Shocking Grasp doesn't pull the weapon, or even the touch toward the target to help it hit. It is a method to convey that the electrical energy from the spell "jumps" toward metal, making it more likely to deal damage against that kind of opponent.

Again this is just my 2 cents and the way me and my players (who have also been playing forever) see the spell.

I think this is kind of funny. I know that if I had a pair of Gloves of Missile Snaring and went to buy a suit of Adamantine Full Plate my DM would say "That will be 16500g". If I replied "You mean 13498g because I don't need the gauntlets and will just sell them back" he would kick my teeth in.